Welcome to the team! :D

At 11/17/09 06:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Private schools themselves aren't affordable to many families and teachers don't want to sink their pay grades in order to help educate the students.

That is because the effect of public education itself makes demand for 'cheap' private education. (in truth, private education, most of it anyway, is already cheaper than public education.

But it isn't just about total cost per child. We're also talking about affordibility, class size, and what is provided. If you want a public school to cost less it is your prerogative to join the board of education and campaign for such practices. Why would an educational institute NEED to spend more money if it were run by a government (local even) body instead of a private institution. There are many reasons for this. Some of them include just the salaries of the workers who are often paid better than their private counterparts. If there are 20 students in a class and the teacher makes 40,000 a year that's already 2000 per student which is already 1000 more than a private teacher makes. I'm basing this on local starting salaries.

We're also talking about requiring book updates more often, generally 100 dollars per book/student, costs of keeping up with technology, running buses etc.

Total cost for a private school isn't indicative of a quality of education.

In general, the fact that public education is free means even if public education is more efficient, cheaper, (property taxes are extremely regressive, and most people

I'm sorry, your paragraph never ended. I think what you are getting at though is that someone who pays for private education also has to pay for public and you don't think this is fair. My response to this is that unless private education becomes affordable to families who don't make enough, tough shit. Give everyone the opportunity to access equal levels of education to the best ability possible or too bad.

Bullshit. I had special needs as a pre-schooler and the public school system didn't offer it.

Most states don't have these requirements until grade K. I also know several kids who had to be pulled out of private institutions because the schools wouldn't meet their needs. They were put in public schools and were provided for immediately.

I had to go to a non governmental school in the HASC program, it's non-profit but as far as i can tell it isn't run by the government.

Its heavily affiliated with state schools & colleges and probably a lot of its workers go to those schools.

Additionally:
http://www.hasc.net/about.php
Unless I'm misreading this, funding is provided by CSE
CSE

But I agree, Jews are awesome. ^_^

This is something most statists forget, the whole reason people vote for the welfare state is because there is an actual demand for a humane society. efficient and effective non-profit non-state organizations emerge, on the free market, like any other profit business, in response to demand.

Yes, but they aren't wide spread and they unfortunately have limits for how many people they can actually help. My girlfriend worked as a TSS for a short time before she was driven from it because the families couldn't pay enough for her to ever have a career and the organization didn't receive enough funding either. Yes public programs weren't filling the gap, but private ones don't necessarily do that either. A combination of the two does wonders.

Ironic statement considering most politicians are probably from private schools.

Don't confuse having family connections and being affluently elitist with this. Also, we'd have to see which schools did they go to? Did they go to the private schools that cost less than public schools or the ones that cost more. If they went to the ones that cost more maybe we aren't spending enough on public education.

Education existed before the government got involved, there was no 'shortage' of education prior to this.

Anarchists don't assemble or believe in government so they can't have institutions or schools or businesses because all of these things create micro governments to run everything.

Just like markets are in everything, government is in everything.

At 11/17/09 06:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Local government is not isolationism,

Wait... right here you missed my point. I didn't say a local government was isolated, I said a local government was equipped to deal with international trade and communication in the way that a larger government would be. The expenses of such regulation aren't feasible, yet letting a conglomerate exist with out some regulation leads to an environment where abuse will be more than abundant.

And the point about isolationism is that if you want an effective local government, you'd have to isolate yourself from such conglomerates. Any attempt to standardize international law will eventually lead to just another federal government.

Local governments, in fact, have the advantage of requiring free trade, Hong Kong again being an example. A country like the United States is large enough that it may be able to get away with smaller consequences of protectionist measures are less damaging because the country is it's own free trade bloc. Small countries cannot afford to do this and so engage in free trade with other countries, which enhances the necessity of diplomacy between those countries, because the nations wealth depends upon the interdependence of other nations. Bastiat had a rather famous saying "When Goods do not cross borders, Armies will"

Yeah, but free trade doesn't mean introducing monopolistic firms which actively set prices and collude where there isn't enough law or enforcement to stop them.

And that again is another benefit of a small sized state, fielding large armies, especially in an era of free trade, is rather difficult.

* Looks at the middle east *

It's funny to talk about 'essentials' that which require 'regulation' by large and powerful states. Obviously these topics are necessary to be covered individually. But it's none the less interesting to see people talk about the necessity of leviathan states to 'regulate' the chaotic order that emerges from the internet. When we compare it with the national basket cases that are Health, Education, Sub-prime mortgage lending, essentially every super-regulated industry.

I'd still say a lot of drug & food regulation is more than important. I wouldn't necessarily agree with all patents & protectionism. But true regulation, where you regulate whether a product is harmful for society is important.

Large governments areuselessagainst fraud. And Mason made a point of showing that. It was the Austrians, not the enlightened oligarchs in the marble chambers of washington that warned of an economic collapse.

Which deregulation facilitated.

No one in the SEC was listening when warnings were made that Madoff was running a ponzi scheme.

Colossal failure I couldn't combat. However: Michael C. Regan & I'm sure there are others.

the FDA never blew the lid on those aids tainted drugs that the drug cartel (which the FDA's and other federal instution's regulations inevitably gave birth to) sent into europe.

Also a failure, but there are other products they have caught.

Several times space ships have blown up on the way to space. We should stop sending spaceships because they never make it.

Like Glenn Beck i would much rather believe that everything is being taken care of by mommy and daddy.

It'll never happen. A system is only as good as the people you put in it. But regulation makes things better and catches some problems. Not all government is bad and I would think a Libretarian being anti fraud wouldn't mind some preemptive investigation in areas where such a thing is predictable and likely to happen (food, drug, & economy).

At 11/23/09 05:09 PM, geterkikzkid wrote:

At 11/23/09 05:02 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Sometimes you can't do what you want to do, like have sex with the girl you have a crush on. Simply because you want her doesn't mean you should drag her into a dark ally and have your way with her.

Who cares, it's fake. And many scientists know it, but are shut up about it.

Lol, no they aren't. The way science works is that if you get enough people to believe you because you have evidence you publish it and its peer reviewed. If there were a community of scientists who didn't believe it, they'd start their own publications and other scientists would buy into it. But that's not happening.

Did you know that POLITICIANS are getting mad that the ice caps aren't melting fast enough?

Politicians aren't scientists and have no real bearing on this. That said, the fabled northwest (in this case true north) passage will be opening up in the next few years during the summer.

Political related threads go in the POLITICS FORUM.

Not your job kid. Keep those kinds of comments to yourself. Science isn't just politics. And most of you couldn't hold a decent political debate if you wanted to even though such a topic already exists.

At 11/23/09 05:02 PM, Elfer wrote: extremely stupid.

Yeah, without some evidence of the other I'm going to have to agree. He's done nothing to support himself and I've looked at a lot of this stuff in context now and none of it seems harmful. I haven't looked at all the data or code (that'd be hard to do), but none of the examples of wrong doing merit any of this.

See this is science. You make a claim, you back it up. People agree with you based on your evidence. Elfer and Pox have provided plenty and AI hasn't provided any, so entering and having read everything I'm siding with Elfer & Pox. The "skeptic" who is being a "skeptic" for the sake of "skepticism" is simply incapable of trusting anything that disagrees with the initial viewpoint he forms because he can't be wrong.

Show me one place where a real deception was committed AI and I'll believe you. Here's your opportunity. The evidence is supposedly out there. Go point out to me exactly how this is a deception and you'll have a convert.

At 11/23/09 04:42 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: The problem with that is if people are trying to do as drastic measures as they are now, we can no longer drive anything we want. What about those who want to drive Trucks and SUVs?

You apparently don't understand what we're talking about here, which is that Trucks & SUVs are part of the problem and fixing it is easier than dealing with destroying the world. -_-

Sometimes you can't do what you want to do, like have sex with the girl you have a crush on. Simply because you want her doesn't mean you should drag her into a dark ally and have your way with her.

Its funny because that's when the quality of the forums exponentiates.

At 11/23/09 04:23 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 11/19/09 05:00 PM, adrshepard wrote: Seriously, why don't all of you guys just move to Canada? There, you can live like Americans without worrying about the problems that accompany having any global influence whatsoever.

It's actually pretty great. The Prime Minister can pretty much do anything and people just don't worry about it.

But I don't like eternal Winter. I move Canada annexes the U.S. and they trade land.

At 11/23/09 04:19 PM, Al6200 wrote: The real problem with your rebuttal, Elfer, is that you're just explaining what the trick is. You could write a 10 page paper on what the trick is, but that would not justify the deceptive ends of that trick.

Here's are two simple question:
"What is the trick?"
"How are they deceptive?"

The answer to the first is found above in a paper that is probably about 10 pages, coincidentally. The answer to the second is that it isn't deceptive, but it is meant to adjust for bad data. Bad data is data that is wrong. To adjust the temperatures and move them closer to real temperatures you would need good data of some sort. So, you would need to prove that the data they replaced the bad data with was in fact bad data and not good data. You haven't done this and so I have a hard time believing there was any deception. Especially since they told everyone what they did, which is not a deception.

You've told us that they might want to hide newer information that is less valid, but there is still an ethical problem with hiding evidence that goes against their conclusions.

If the data wasn't valid it isn't evidence against them. Do you not understand that?

The way insurance works is that you create a risk pool. Everyone pays into it and then when a few people get hurt or sick there's money to cover it. You might be one of those people, so if you're paying into the pool you are safe and if not, you're possibly ruined.

The high deductible plans tend to suck off the people who think they don't need it yet. But their leaving also raises rates for everyone else. And when they do get to the age that they need it costs will have risen further and having not paid into it they then join a plan they haven't been investing in and that plan continues to suffer.

Essentially, by not paying when you are younger, you are stealing when you are older.

And yes, its a socialist idea to begin with. You give your money and its redistributed to the people who need it. No matter who runs it, it is socialist. But clearly, insurance isn't always bad, so don't let that word taint the idea of it simply because its become rhetoric.

Now, beyond that you have far more problems with the way money is spent and approved and rather than get into it I'm going to post a link to a video. And yes, this video convinced me that rationing healthcare is necessary and good:

The Cost of Dying

At 11/23/09 03:22 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: GumonShoe you still haven't outlined how ending interest wouldn't be catastrophic.

For the current system it would be very catastrophic. But that's because the current policy is entirely debt ridden. Debt is the only thing backing our money and its how our system works. That is real slavery for you, just shifted.

And investing is more like banking than you know. Investing is the act of sacrificing present goods, in favor of acquiring a larger amount of future goods. For example, I save, and then spend, 100,000 dollars to build a restaurant. I sacrificed that 100,000 dollars which i could have spent on a fancy new car, or a vacation, or something else, in order to acquire some value of money greater than 100,000 dollars in the future.

When a bank loans 100,000 dollars at, say, 10% Interest over a period of five years. That Bank is sacrificing the money that they could have spent on themselves in the immediate for some sum of money larger than 100,000 that they value equal to or higher in the future.

Lets consider the situations you have proposed. They'll be considered in this order:
1) Jerry invests his own money in a restaurant hoping the restaurant makes him money
2) Bank loans Jerry the money to open the restaurant
3) Bank invests the money in Jerry for a cut of the profits

[ ONE ]
-- Jerry has no guarantee he will make money back, but because he has no guarantee (if he isn't a total failure), he'll work very hard to make more money because its his ass riding the line. He still might fail and lose everything, but then he's just back at square 1.

[ TWO ]
-- Bank loans Jerry the money and just expects a certain amount of it back each month after a certain point. If Jerry's business fails, the bank will repossess it and all of his assets [CHAPTER 7]. Either way, Jerry's essentially back at square 1 and the bank has gained something so it doesn't care. Technically they can't make him pay it all back here completely, but in [CHAPTER 13] the debt continues perhaps with more interest over a longer period of time, which just means more money. So, "they give up money again" for more in the future.

Unfortunately, for educational loans and some other loans, this isn't the case at all. The debtor can't ever get off the hook. They will forever be in debt and there is no risk to the bank. They loan the money out knowing every kid in america will have to pay them back and be debt for the rest of their lives if they ever want a job.

[ THREE ]

The bank loans the money to Jerry. If the restaurant fails, the bank loses out completely. There's no guarantee, so they aren't going to invest the money in Jerry unless he's got a really good idea and knows how to cook. Additionally, once they've invested, depending on their terms, they stand to make more money if the business continues to do well. There's also an implied relationship here. Because the bank's returns rely heavily on the success of the business, they will want to do what they can to make sure the restaurant is a success, whether this means helping to advertise or something else entirely like securing rights to audit the restaurant or have the food taste tested.

While Jerry may find this obtrusive, if he's made enough profit or met the initial terms of the investment contract, he could possibly terminate his relationship with the investor, in this case the bank. This means that BOTH Jerry and the Bank have mutual goals and the relationship becomes about cooperation and not the power to collect and repossess.

[ _ . _ ]

In case 1, Jerry is motivated by profit. In Case 2 Jerry is motivated by the desire to not have his life ruined and the Bank just cares about returns, and in case 3 everyone is actually motivated by profit & performance which is significantly better as risk actually exists.

At 11/23/09 03:22 PM, Zerok wrote: Some might say that's the same kind of tactic the government uses... hmmm....

Let's not even claim the government is doing this. Its pretty clear the drive is from the scientific community and always has been. Just because they finally convinced a politician with heaps of data as their evidence doesn't mean politics has corrupted the entire field.

Also, since scientists brought this up first, one might ask how that initial motive was a "creation of the government."

Not claiming you were saying that Jordy, but I don't want to let someone think he's won something here, where every claim he's made is based merely on his own opinion. We have science for a reason and that's to eliminate our need to base our most important and crucial decisions on such opinions.

The article is about uncertainty. I don't think it sums up what you're saying at all.

It is also clearly from someone who doesn't understand science and has a rudimentary understanding of graphs. On the one hand they are talking about how there's no proof and on the other they are comparing global climate change as something that should happen within a span of months, neglecting the idea of a season.

At 11/23/09 01:16 PM, Al6200 wrote: http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22 /these-will-be-artificially-adjusted/

Directly from that site:

"the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."

HIT!

At 11/23/09 12:43 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

At 11/23/09 11:42 AM, Elfer wrote:

Do you think that any US politician right now is going to propose taxing their constituents and then sending the money somewhere that they have no control over it?

Yes, because so many of them are all on the payroll of the globalists.

So, you are claiming that the United States Senate will approve a Carbon tax when it can't find the votes to give its population universal healthcare? Seriously? Every Republican would vote it down out of sheer vehement hatred of anything coming from a Democrat (we know there isn't a republican who would propose such a thing) and the moderate Dems and those worried about losing a race wouldn't vote for it either. Also, as China would refuse to pay such a tax, its already dead.

Also, by globalists do you mean free masons, the jewish conspiracy, etc etc? LOL

A9, I know your battleship's been hit 8 times and it only takes 4 to sink and we've said A9 three times already, but I thought I'd give it another shot.

At 11/23/09 11:09 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It really depends on who you ask.

Lots of us are so mixed that we don't really have much affinity for one European country over the other.

I myself am about 50% French-Canadian, 20% Polish, 30% other European. (As far as I can tell)

I'd have to say this is becoming the norm. 50 to 100 years ago when most immigrants were European, this was definitely more true. But a lot of immigrants are now from Central America (legally/illegally) or Asia. And these groups which have maintained their identities have generally also kept to themselves and created centers. IE chinatown. There's a lot of people in china town who know about china, but outside of that and you're in another country.

The more people mix, the less they learn about where their family came from.

My grandparents knew Yiddish, I just know that they knew it and a couple of the dirtier words they'd called me when I was a kid. But I'm a mix of everything: Russian, Polish, German, Austrian, English, Scottish, Irish, & Native American (I'm probably forgetting one or two). Part of my family married into a Mexican one, so there'll be more diversity with the next generation.

The stuff fades and becomes less important.

Also, evidence for why I don't believe much that their regime says.

At 11/22/09 05:40 PM, lapis wrote: Statistics? You mean exit polls?

Yes, and the actual published results.

Beyond that though, even if the voting wasn't a farce. As others have pointed out there is no process by which the people actually pick their leaders. The leaders for choice are all presented by the government that already exists.

More to the point, anyone who disagrees openly is arrested. That kind of quashes any argument for democracy if they aren't allowed to have freedom of speech. You can't have one with out the other.

At 11/20/09 03:46 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Yeah, I've often heard the term trick used in the context of a process. Doesn't necessarily imply evil doing. I think you guys are all using a few e-mails to justify the position you already hold and since a majority of you have never done research, excuse me if I still believe the photos of glaciers melting faster than they should.

I felt like replying, but realized I'd only be saying what I already said + a couple insults, so I'll just leave it at that. This is as stupid as people saying the Government planned 9/11.

At 11/23/09 02:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Okay, cool, but you're still not addressing why people who earn more should be forced to pay a greater percentage of their taxes.

You're not adjusting in your perspective properly. Everyone pays an equal percentage (directly related to standard of living). This means that if you made more money gross, you still make more money after taxes. But the people who can pay more do. Its not strict equality, but it also isn't a contractual agreement between two adults.

"The idea of making money because you have money and not an actual product is a defunct one."
Investing is exactly this, making money with money. But you act like it's a bad thing, when in reality is an essential thing.

Investing is that. Usury isn't. When a bank says: "I'll loan you 30 dollars today, but only if you give me 40 next week & if you fail to do so I take your house," that isn't an investment. An investment literally means you give someone money in exchange for something else and if profit is made you make money too. But if profit isn't made, you made a bad decision and you lose out too.

The idea that an entity should be guaranteed a return no matter what they've invested in is a faulty one. If you loan a crack head 60 dollars, you don't get that 60 back and its your own fault for lending it out. Additionally, this model can cause problems. If an entity only ever takes in money and when it does lend out money, requires it back in excess, then obviously you'll begin to have the entire economy rely on that entity because eventually all money has to come from there and go back.

For example:

The government says bank A can loan out $30 and "creates" the money for it to do so. That $30 goes out to a person who has to pay interest on it. But that $30 can't ever turn into anything worth more than $30 and since the money isn't backed its impossible to trade anything in for money. The only way to get the money is to get it from someone else, but eventually that person has to take out a loan. Since the government only distributes money through banks and that money is only injected into the economy through loans & payroll with expected returns, the nation is required to be in debt to the banks. It is impossible for people not to be debt, which in some ways is a greater burden than taxes.

Without interest on loans and credit, no one would give people loans and credit.

Exactly, we shouldn't have loans or credit. You buy what you can pay for, and if you think your children need something in the future you save, and in the case of education & health care we save as a nation before hand. And anyone who does need extra cash gets it through an investment program where the people investing in them actually have studied the plan and the person and are willing to rely on profits to get money back.

Don't have $300,000 in the bank? oh bad luck you're going to have to live with your parents the rest of your life.

You don't like apartments or small houses? Well then sure, live with your parents until you make money. And if you can't do that, it sucks to be you.

And don't give me crap about it would stop people from getting into credit card debt, because that's their own fucking fault for being so stupid to have a credit card in the first place.

LOL, you just proposed that people NEED credit to live their lives and then admit it'll ruin their lives, but you defend it still.

All of these countries:
-Are smaller than the United States

Not true.

-have smaller populations of illegal immigrants than United States

Not true.

-Have lower quality of health care than United States

This is a blantant lie. A majority have better quality. We're ranked a lot lower than them.

-have populations where the majority actually want Universal health care introduced, unlike America

A majority of Americans want reform. A majority of Americans are too stupid to know whats good for them. So, I really don't care about this point. (Also another reason why I wouldn't be elected).

One size does not fit all.

Clearly, but if everyone else is living a better life, and you choose not to, its your own fault.

It's not the government's job yo ensure the happiness of the people.

LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

And yes, it isn't a guarantee of happiness, but it should not create a system where people aren't allowed to be happy either.

It's their job to protect their rights and security, so they should protect people's rights to work themselves into unhappiness.

And they should provide an out for those who don't want to.

They'll be happier doing it.

Not healthier though, which was your whole point. Unhealthier if anything, coz, liek u kno alcohol's bad for you.

All studies show that moderate consumption of alcohol isn't too bad for you. And it is unlikely that people given an extra 2 hours every day would spend that time drinking more.

I would spend it doing work at home.

That would be your choice and you'd live the life you'd chosen to do. And you'd have a better chance of inventing something or starting your own business (as i was pointing out). So thank you for proving my point. But you'd also have time to do other things if you wanted, and many would.

I'm sure a majority of Americans would rather spend their time working than not working, especially if they're paid by the hour.

Wages would have to adjust to value work more, especially since we're counting on productivity increasing.

I don't want to monitor it. I want people to teach who want to teach and I want people to be able to learn what they want to learn. And I want people to be given the opportunity to work in the real work environment so that they know what they like ahead of time.

Okay that sounds brilliant and all, but there is no way at all that this could be effectively implemented on a large scale at all.

Yes, it is impossible to stop handing out standardized tests (which we used to not do), ask teachers to do more hands on work than lectures (something they are already starting to do), and provide more internship type work for people over the age of 14. That would be sooooo difficult.

Competition is a brilliant thing. Holding back companies that are better than their competitors for the sake of artificial competition is a terrible thing.

No its not. It forces more ideas to be implemented simultaneously and gives more room for startups.

Sorry, explain how embracing freedom means "embracing someone else's free choice to suppress you". Makes no sense.

You want to deregulate the economy, if I remember correctly. And, you claim child labor isn't used for anything important. You neglect to realize that during the industrial revolution, and still in the developing and industrialized eastern nations that child labor is more than often used. Giving companies the freedom to hire whoever they want at any wage means that they are going to take advantage of the child population and put them in horrid work conditions. And all the proof you need is written in the annuls of time and in other countries who don't have or enforce child labor laws.

The minute you tell someone they can't do something you are encroaching on their freedom. It is impossible to ever be truly free if you want a government and governments always rise up. So, ultimately, a society should choose one that will maximize everyone's freedom of choice and happiness.

And although greed can be a bad thing sometimes, it's greed that made America the most prosperous society in the history of the world.

... at the expense of
... ignores the fact that not all options have been tried (there's generally more than one way to win)
... ignores the results of being greedy. We're seeing the fall out now on a global scale. IE GB's decline.
etc

I'm currently writing an API that determines whether it should communicate with Google Wave state or whether it should communicate via Socket with a server that emulates a Google Wave Gadget State.

I want everything to be functionally equivalent, but the obvious flaw is that the Google Wave api uses externalcall to directly call JavaScript, so it can actually return a result. Very differently, the socket variant has to call the server and wait for a response, which makes it more of a Listener coding style.

I would prefer to use the call & return variant as that is the main method of communication, but I'm not sure if there is a way to delay the return of a function or even store a function and its caller property until its time to actually return. I have a feeling this is hard or impossible to do since Flash is mostly single threaded.

At 11/22/09 03:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Um, America already HAS a progressive tax code.

With extreme loopholes & so much paperwork that there are too many expenses. The new tax code would be pay this % of your income where the percentage is directly related to the amount of money you make in relation to the cost of living. You divide one number by another and then multiply that by your gross and that's what you owe. End of story.

So you want to abolish investing? As in the thing that our economy relies upon?

Investing is fine, but you'll have to actually go into the business to do it & make a profit. Interest for credit and loans is what would be abolished. And the Arabs did it successfully a long time ago. They actually banned usury & had a flourishing society.

Countless reasons why Universal health care is a bad idea but that's a whole other thread's worth of discussion.

Unfortunately for you, unlike communism, every country that's done it proves you're wrong. So kindly fuck off.

Wait, so force people to work less? meaning less productivity, less money made, hence less money with which you can fund your nanny state with.

No, not at all. I firmly believe productivity would go up as would employment & general health and happiness of the population.

And people aren't going to exercise more, they'll probably just end up drinking more if anything.

They'll be happier doing it. And you'd be surprised what people would do with more time in the day. It would certainly leave more time for pursuit of your real interests and I'm sure we'd see more inventions and small businesses within a span of 5 years than we would have otherwise.

Why should people be forced to fund the arts? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Because aesthetics & entertainment keep a population happy and a happy population is more productive.

J) Remove standardized tests from curriculum and encourage more trade based & hands on learning.

Good luck monitoring large-scale academic achievement.

I don't want to monitor it. I want people to teach who want to teach and I want people to be able to learn what they want to learn. And I want people to be given the opportunity to work in the real work environment so that they know what they like ahead of time.

K) Place strict limits on market share maximums. IE, no company can have a market share of greater than 33% and any that does has to split up.

Fuck that, you just end up hurting the market rather than helping it.
And like 'spliting it up' will solve anything

Competition. Such an evil thing.

Seriously dude, embrace freedom.

Totally embracing freedom means embracing someone else's free choice to suppress you. The total pursuit of greed is a cancer which continually & cyclically corrupts this nation.

I wouldn't be elected for three reasons:

1) I have 10,000 + posts on an internet forum and would be easy pickings

2) I'm Jewish.

3) My Platform:

A) Equality under the state becomes official in all respects of the word between consenting adults. An adult is someone who is 18 years of age. A consenting adult is not necessarily in a sexual relationship, though it would certainly be an example of such. IE, Kavorkian probably wouldn't have gone to jail if I had been writing laws. Abortions are legal. Gay marriage, great. And polygamy, if that's your thing, ok, your biz.

B) Abolish the current tax code and replace it with an increasing percentage based tax on earnings. There are absolutely zero tax breaks anywhere to inspire anything. Taxes are expected and the economy can grow around them.

C) Remove almost all restrictions on scientific research, neglecting unsafe studies on live, born individuals and create a general fund for experimentation and business growth. Money is to be supplied for start ups only (not to save failing businesses) & for ground breaking research. Money is made back after a profit is turned, but not more than what was loaned out. Focus research includes robotics, space flight, and biology (drugs, biological engineering, etc).

D) Abolish interest as a practice. The idea of making money because you have money and not an actual product is a defunct one.

E) Move to end conflicts abroad and reduce the army further. I'd close down bases that weren't required, but leave some. They would be there for diplomatic purposes only and eventually be demilitarized where permitted.

F) Access to Universal Healthcare & Education.

G) Shortening of the work day to 6 hours to encourage exercise, mobility & a better moral.

H) Net neutrality & support of the arts.

I) Weed out bad regulators and force regulators & finance companies to post information on the internet to encourage good practices (ie wiki leaks on crack).

J) Remove standardized tests from curriculum and encourage more trade based & hands on learning.

K) Place strict limits on market share maximums. IE, no company can have a market share of greater than 33% and any that does has to split up.

At 11/20/09 04:02 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: It's like when you're standing at a bar waiting to get served, if there's someone before you, you always tell the barman that they're next - I hate it when people don't do this to the point that I would agree with on-the-spot executions.

God, Chinese Restaurant, last week!

A couple came in and it was a small waiting room. Gf & I stepped to the side so they could stand and then the couple looked indignant we were seated first simply because they had edged their way in front of us.

Also, I only let doors close if its someone I would rather have further behind me. Doesn't happen too often.

Here's where you submit content: http://www.newgrounds.com/submit

Also, you'll need to have it in .swf format.

If you have problems, I'd recommend contacting the appropriate admin via pm, which you can see here: http://www.newgrounds.com/staff.html

Yeah, I've often heard the term trick used in the context of a process. Doesn't necessarily imply evil doing. I think you guys are all using a few e-mails to justify the position you already hold and since a majority of you have never done research, excuse me if I still believe the photos of glaciers melting faster than they should.

At 11/20/09 02:18 PM, Stoicish wrote: That's what worried me as well.

The Republican party, on principal, is not a bad party.

But, like ACORN, the execution is done very poorly.

IE Their website, which sounds Libretarian even though they aren't:

Helping those around you is worthwhile

The Republican Party believes in the value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution.

Small government is a better government for the people

The Republican Party, like our nation's founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.

** Unless you want to marry someone of your own gender, grow a new trachea, or wait to have a kid.

You know what to do with your money better than government

The Republican Party supports low taxes because individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices.

** But we'll spend your children's money

Free markets keep people free

The Republican Party is supportive of logical business regulations that encourage entrepreneurs to start more businesses so more individuals can enjoy the satisfaction and fruits of self-made success.

** Because a free market has regulations.

Our Armed Forces defend and protect our democracy

The Republican Party is committed to preserving our national strength while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

** Because nothing says freedom like a gun in your face.

The Republican Party is guided by these principles as it develops solutions to the challenges facing America.

** Please note we won't be proposing any legislation any time soon so long as our man isn't in the white house.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrats

HEALTHCARE FOR ALL

Actually working this, even if they are failing pretty hard. Its more like, well, you'll have the opportunity to have something, but we're going to let the people who don't have it opt out anyway and we're going to cave to pressures and actually limit the services you can get currently.

ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE

All talk. Even though they talk the talk, they aren't walking it.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Again, looking to be mostly talk. We're just increasing our dependency on coal & natural gas, which we have a lot of, but again is probably a temporary solution. Haven't seen a huge push for this, probably because it just isn't likely to happen for another few decades anyways.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform
America has always been a nation of immigrants. Over the years, millions of people have come here in the hope that in America, you can make it if you try. Each successive wave of immigrants has contributed to our country's rich culture, economy and spirit. Like the immigrants that came before them, today's immigrants will shape their own destinies and enrich our country.

We'll never see this happen in the next 4 years.

National Security

Mostly the same stuff. Speeches about openness, probably not followed through in policy. A lot of hand waving, but hey I guess hand waving can be important.

Reclaiming Our Civil Rights & Liberties

Guantanamo is being shut down, but Obama is keeping up to 90 prisoners in permanent detention. Also, haven't heard a word about the patriot act.

Economic Stewardship
In this time of economic transformation and crisis, we must be stewards of this economy more than ever before. We will maintain fiscal responsibility, so that we do not mortgage our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can do this at the same time that we invest in our future. We will restore fairness and responsibility to our tax code. We will bring balance back to the housing markets, so that people do not have to lose their homes. And we will encourage personal savings, so that our economy remains strong and Americans can live well in their retirements.

Needs Improvement on that whole debt bit.
Tax Code - lol
Balance to the Housing Markets - No politician could hope to achieve that, they just put ice on a bleeding chest wound is all. I guess it might have hurt less.
Personal Savings - Yeah, encouragement. Go Team America! (fuck yeah). Interest rates are so low, saving sucks.

OPEN, HONEST & ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT

I don't know 60%. Yay for websites! But congress remains indecipherable as does new legislation.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Didn't fully lift restrictions as they should have on stem cell research. Broken promise.

Secure Retirement
We will make it a priority to secure for hardworking families the part of the American Dream that includes a secure and healthy retirement. Individuals, employers, and government must all play a role. We will adopt measures to preserve and protect existing public and private pension plans.

Probably not going to happen either.

Anyways, the Republican party doesn't really support anything it says it does and the Democratic party says its going to do a lot of really awesome things and then can't follow through.

I don't like either party even if both of them present themselves as a Godsend. Obviously the rhetoric sounds excellent and the plans on both sides appear to have merit, but when you get down to the execution or nitty gritty details you find out they were just lying at worst, and at best making a wish list they knew they couldn't cash in.

Yup, and you can't unlock this. :P

At 11/20/09 01:33 PM, Memorize wrote: Kind of like how everyone made fun of Palin for the Russian-"They're our Neighbors, so I know about Foreign Policy" statement which actually came from a SNL skit.

If only

A class is a collection of methods which work on a set of variables specified in the class.

The first thing you do in a class is tell it which other classes it should have access to with an import. Any methods in those classes can be called then in your class.

Then you define a constructor. A constructor takes in variables like any other method (read function), and uses those variables to set up itself.

For instance, if you have a ball, as mentioned earlier, you might want to the set of variables {y, x, radius} to define where the ball is and how to draw it. The constructor method would set y, x & radius and store those values for later.

Then if you want the ball to have a bounce function you write a function to do it and it has access to anything that was made in the constructor and can adjust y,x & radius if needed.

Then, the idea is that because this is all code in one place whenever you need a ball, you just declare a new ball.

// import other classes here
class ball {

    // declare class variables here
    private var myX:Number;
    private var myY:Number;
    private var myRadius:Number;

    public function ball(x:Number, y:Number, radius:Number) {
        this.myX = x;
        this.myY = y;
        this.myRadius = radius;
        setPosition(myX, myY);
    }

    public function setPosition(x:Number, y:Number) { // This always refers to "This Object"
        this.x = x;
        this.y = y;
    }

    public static function newBall(x:Number, y:Number, radius:Number):Ball {
        return new Ball(x, y, radius);
    }

    // etc
}

At 11/18/09 01:25 PM, Chumbawamba wrote: It's selling itself.

Yeah, I get that and a bunch of tech ads.